[teiferer]

> The PIC might not like a shirt you’re wearing, he can’t make you take it off.

That's likely a false statement, even if unintentionally so.

If the t-shirts print is offensive enough then I'm sure a strong enough argument can be made. After all, how are a "bomb" bluetooth name or a "free palestine" wifi ssid much different from a t-shirt with similar contents?

Try wearing a t-shirt with "I'm carrying a bomb and will blow this aircraft up" and see how far it gets you on your next flight. The crew (including the PIC) won't be amused.

[joxdosba]

Well duh, obviously the PIC can order you to undress if you’re wearing a shirt made out of flaming batteries.

> If the t-shirts print is offensive enough then I'm sure a strong enough argument can be made

I’m pretty sure I’ve explained this: if it is necessary for the safe operation of the flight, then yes.

The PIC does not get to do this because he personally finds your shirt offensive.

[teiferer]

You make it sound like it's a black-or-white situation, but it surely is not. What consitutes a danger to the safe operation of a flight is quite broadly up for interpretation. The word "bomb"? A strongly worded hateful message? Lots of things can e argued to compromise safety, by claiming they cause fear in other passengers, by indicating aggressive attitudes of the wearer, but claiming mental instability. I'm not saying that any of this is good. See the BT or wifi examples. But not liking it doesn't change reality.

And that you as a pilot would personally not do that in many situations may be commendable, but doesn't mean others won't nor that they don't have the authority to do so since in the end of the day it would be hard to counter in court.

[joxdosba]

> You make it sound like it's a black-or-white situation, but it surely is not

I have no idea how you could possibly interpret my comments like that.

> Lots of things can e argued to compromise safety, by claiming they cause fear in other passengers, by indicating aggressive attitudes of the wearer, but claiming mental instability. I'm not saying that any of this is good. See the BT or wifi examples. But not liking it doesn't change reality.

Now you are either just assuming dishonesty or falsely supposing that “can be argued” is the relevant test.

It’s a weird thing to debate in this manner, we’ve got endless legal precedents establishing the relevant standards. Absolutely no need to speculate.

> since in the end of the day it would be hard to counter in court.

No, it wouldn’t. Even legitimate cases of misbehaviour on aircraft rarely lead to prosecution (in the US).

[teiferer]

> falsely supposing that “can be argued” is the relevant test.

Hm? It's what counts in court, so it is the only relevant test.

> Even legitimate cases of misbehaviour on aircraft rarely lead to prosecution (in the US).

People have been removed from aircraft by the police for decades. Yes, there is lots of precedence here. Whether in the end that leads to prosecution is secondary. What we are debating here is whether the PIC had the right to have them removed in these cases, and clearly they had.

[joxdosba]

I assure you, “can be argued” is most certainly not the test used by courts when convicting people of crimes.